Monday, November 15, 2004

William Safire Resigns

New York Times columnist William Safire will step down in January 2005, the paper reported today.

Thank God. Now maybe they can find a conservative columnist with a grasp of reality. He should have been fired after his repeated columns about Mohammed Atta in Prague and Musab al-Zarqawi's links to Osama bin Laden, even though both stories have been thorougly disproven. Perhaps he is resigning in frustration because, despite God knows how many columns he's written on the subject, no one seems to care about his Saddam Hussein/U.N. Oil for Food scandal. Oooooh, Saddam Hussein was a corrupt ruler who tried to game the system for his own benefit and possibly bribed international officials.

Duh.

Oh, speaking of resignations, Colin Powell quit today. So did Secretary of Education Rod Page -- now THERE was a scandal Safire should have written about; Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham; and Agriculture Ann Veneman. Total Bush Administration resignations since the election: 6.

Bush lied. Let's see your evidence of this, from your earlier post, is the "Mission Accomplished" sign in the background of Bush speech on the carrier. The White House made the sign and Bush "acted" like it was all the carriers idea. That's it? Come now, I know you can do better than that.

People do care about the Oil for Food Program. Wait, I retract that statement. Bush didn't care about what the U.N. said about going to war with Iraq because of the Oil for Food scandal. So, you're right. Nobody cares about that scandal and that's why we do what we want in Iraq with or without U.N. approval. The U.N. can suck it.

Resignations shmegiznations. What point are you trying to make? Oh let me guess:

"Bush sucks! See, even his own cabinet agrees with my epiphany. they are dropping like hotcakes!"

If you look back in history you will find that it is normal for people to leave their offices upon reelection of a new/existing president.

Clinton lost his Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Chief of Staff among other high ranking positions. But I guess it really was because they just wanted to "move on" or "get into the civilian sector". When it happenns to Bush it is because he "sucks"? Please, once again your liberal stance falls short of a first down.

The QUESTIONS are: 1) Was invasion and occupation of Iraq the correct choice? Were there no other options? 2) Has it been poorly managed? 3) Is this really related to the larger "War on Terror" and was Saddam Hussein really Priority #1?

As I will point out in this much, much longer post I'm working on (just you wait, 'enry 'iggns), you seem to be stuck believing that the choice was between all out invasion and doing absolutely nothing, leaving Saddam to do whatever he wanted.

That was never the choice and no one ever suggested otherwise, except for Dick Cheney.

And, TK, you're putting words in my mouth and drawing your own conclusions about the resignations. I only mentioned who resigned today and how many total there have been. I never suggested that this was unusual or indicative of anything. It was just a status report.

The only editorial comment I made was a dig at Rod Page, the charlatan from Houston who once called the teachers' union a "terrorist organization," and who rose to his cabinet post by virture of the "success" of his reformations in Texas, which turned out to be a complete scam.

Ah well my apologies on the mind reading on my part but I will have to ask you to not do the same with me when saying I "think" there were only two choices in dealing with Saddam- invasion or leav him alone. In fact, let give you some information to ponder about while you are gleaning your sources off a computer screen.

We gave Saddam plenty of opportunity to come clean. We gave him plenty of chances to cooperate with the U.N. sanctioned inspections. He had people fooled all over the world that he had and would use (had already used, in fact) chemical weapons.

There are hundreds of gallons chemicals missing from inventory reports Saddam gave the U.N. inspectors. Although we haven't found the stockpiles we were hoping for, we still found WMD's. That is an undisputable fact. The only thing to dispute about the findings is that they weren't the weapons intelligence reports said were there. They weren't the weapons we based going to war on.

But we still found some and there begins the critical thinking challenge. There are only a few reasons we haven't found the stockpiles.

1) They don't exist. (I'll put the liberal reasoning in the forefront)

My first comment on a previous blog has a list of statements from people, Dem and Repub alike, that state Saddam had WMD. How ocnvenient you didn't address those comments.

2)If they don't exist then Saddam has pulled the biggest mind fuck of all time. He convinced the world that he had and would use them but was just blowing smoke up our asses. This theory begs so many more questions that it would take a devoted blog to cover.

3)There are WMD in Iraq but we haven't found them yet.

With all theother hardware that is being unearthed everyday why would it be so farfetched to think that Saddam had buried the chemical weapons too? the Army unearthed a freakin MIG for crying out loud. If he would go to those lengths to hide an airplane what lengths do you think he would go to to hide chemical weapons? What a great segway into my next point.

4)He got the WMD out of Iraq.

Syria? Iran? Who knows. Cite as many sources as you can, and a quick google search for "WMD's Iraq" yields thousands, and they all contradict the pre-war statements from world leaders that he had them.

So my friend, we are at gridlock. The purpose of a debate is to sway another's thinking otherwise what is the purpose of debating? Your "facts" do not sway me nor mine sway you. You are gearing toward a huge posting that will probably not contain any new material that hasn't already been the focus of a professional commentary but that is the beauty of the Internet- redundancy, it works for both sides.

Oh Lord, this really can go on forever. But I feel compelled to respond.

The chemicals you refer to were likely destroyed. Saddam said he destroyed them. We can't find them. Bush's complaint was that Saddam could offer no "proof" that he had destroyed them. That's kinda weak.

And actually, the conclusion of the Duelfer report was basically reason number 2 that you cited: Saddam fooled us. For him possession of the weapons was for prestige more than anything. Bizarre, but apparently true.

The idea that he moved them out of Iraq is preposterous. Go back and look at Bush's State of the Union speech from January 2002. Look at the quantities he's talking about. I assume our intelligence services were monitoring Iraq as closely as possible...spy satellites, etc. You tell me how a country under such severe international sanctions, under threat of attack from the United States, could possibly move those kinds of weapons out of the country without anyone knowing about it.

A MiG is not a weapon of mass destruction. One fighter jet that is presumably at least 20 years old? Who was he gonna attack with that? Israel would take it out in .005 seconds. Also, we were monitoring the no-fly zones pretty closely from our bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We'd have noticed. Speaking of noticing, I've followed this pretty closely in the press. No one has mentioned a buried MiG. Cite, please. I'll happily eat my hat if you can prove it.

And I'm sorry, when you're dealing with matters of international law, WMD means specific things: chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons that were specifically banned after the 1991 Gulf War. A powerful weapon, such as the missing Al Qaqaa explosives, is not in the same category. The contents of Al Qaqaa were actually legal because they have practical applications, such as demolition of old buildings, road/tunnel construction, etc. Therefore, it is completely "disputable" that we have found WMDs. Powerful weapons such as explosives? Every country in the world has them. We went specifically in search of banned substances relating to chemical or biological weapons and to uncover a nuclear weapons program.

We found NOTHING. If you have evidence to the contrary, you might want to share it with the White House, I'm sure they'd be happy to hear from you.

It's segue, by the way. I am a music major, after all.

It is true, as I will clearly point out in this major blog I'm working on, that Saddam and the inspections had a troubled history. But the fact is, in 2002 he allowed inspectors in and gave them unfettered access. They went anywhere and everywhere they wanted to go. It was BUSH that forced them to leave so that he could drop his bombs. Saddam was cooperating...why wouldn't he? He didn't have any weapons, they weren't going to find anything.

I hve to agree that this could go on forever because peple still believe the beating drums of the Democrats. I am disappointed in our last post. It looks like you are slipping. I expected to see more sources citing your claims.

You said:The chemicals you refer to were likely destroyed.Key word: likely

Now for the quote of the day:Saddam said he destroyed them.

This is the best you can do? Saddam "said". I really needed a good laugh this morning. Well, by that token I must say that Bush said Saddam DID have them. Whose word do we go with?

Let's see, Baghdad Bob "said":I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have started to commit suicide under the walls of Baghdad. We will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly."So were you so quick to believe this tripe as you were to believe Saddam's?

You said:"The idea that he moved them out of Iraq is preposterous."Instead of making just an uninformed statement like the one above I have this source for you. This will be on my blog soon but I thought it would serve this discussion well.

Concerning WMD transfer:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/artic...RTICLE_ID=38581"Over the last few months, the U.S. intelligence community has received new evidence a sizable amount of Iraqi WMD systems, components and platforms were transferred to Syria in the weeks leading up to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service."Uh ohhh. Looks like Saddam did manage to get some stuff out of Iraq. If you don't like that source I have another:

Demetrius Perricos, acting chairman of UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), recently disclosed that his inspectors have been busily tracking shipments of illicit Iraqi WMD components around the world.

The Associated Press announced that UNMOVIC inspectors have found dozens of engines from banned al-Samoud 2 (SA2) missiles, which were shipped out of Iraq as “scrap metal.”What? The U.N. is agreeing with Bush? The Four Horsemen must be getting close.

I like, in the MIG paragraph, how you try to sidestep the issue of buried chemical weapons paralleling the fact that MIG's are not considered WMD's. Grasping for straws now? Well, hope you have someting handy to wash down those straws along with your hat.

Here is a site with the MIG Dig on it. This was on the news sites some time ago and even appeared on our Secret LAN after it happened. I guess it got release authority to civilians shorlty thereafter. MIG Dig SiteSo, getting back to my original point: If Saddam can bury MIG's who's to say he didn't bury these missing weapons? Well, the remaining weapons that haven't been shipped off to Syria or Iran. Or the weapons you purport he destroyed.

So now you end your post with some more irrelevant information concerning the missing explosives. More slight of hand Democrats are notorious for. I didn't mention anything about explosives, just WMD's.

As far as sharing the evidence of WMD in Iraq with the White House I did get on the red line to D.C. and they assured me they already knew about it. For the rest of you, however, that want to keep the blinders on and follow the flip flopping Democrats here is something to set you up for the deathblow. People like to think that there is a Republican scandal that we are the only ones who believe there are WMD's in Iraq. If the U.S. was "fooled" into beliving this then the Democrats helped fuel this "lie". What a great segway (sic):

"I share the [Bush] administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Congressman Dick Gephardt (D-Iowa)September 19, 2002http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS....congress.iraq/"As we survey the landscape of threats to our security in the years ahead, the greatest are terrorists like Al Qaeda and rogue regimes like Saddam Hussein's. Saddam hates America and Americans and is working furiously to accumulate deadly weapons of mass destruction, and the missiles, planes, and unmanned aerial vehicles to use in attacking distant targets .... The essential facts are known. We know of the weapons in Saddam's possession: chemical, biological, and nuclear in time. We know of his unequaled willingness to use them. We know his history. His invasions of his neighbors. His dreams of achieving hegemonic control over the Arab world. His record of anti-American rage. His willingness to terrorize, to slaughter, to suppress his own people and others. We need not stretch to imagine nightmare scenarios in which Saddam makes common cause with the terrorists who want to kill us Americans and destroy our way of life." -- Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut)September 13, 2002http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-se1703.html"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. Now this much is undisputed." -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-New York)October 10, 2002http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.htmlI could go on but I am saving more of these gems for my blog. I just wanted to use the most damning of these statements on this bog. I think some of my readers (both of them) might come here since I did link a few times to your site. I am looking forward to reading your next post. It looks like you are going to great lengths to rebutt the same tired arguments that have riddled both sides of the fence.

I'll be glad when we can get back to discussing my kidney stones or your up and coming singing career!